Background
Jacques Vincent sought judicial review of a decision by the Council of the Huron-Wendat Nation of Wendake. His application was dismissed by the Federal Court on April 21, 2026 (2026 FC 532). The Council, having succeeded in the proceeding, claimed $14,037.34 in costs. Vincent disputed the amount, arguing that appropriate costs should be limited to $8,200 with no disbursements. The parties submitted written arguments on costs in accordance with the court’s directions, leaving Justice Duchesne to determine the proper quantum and nature of the costs award.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Duchesne awarded the Council $10,600 in costs—equivalent to 53 units under Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules at $200 per unit—which was less than the Council’s claim but significantly more than Vincent’s proposal. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 400 to allow certain cost items while rejecting others.
On contested items, the court interpreted “other supporting witness affidavits” in Item 11 of Tariff B to include all non-expert witness affidavits, regardless of whether the witness was the principal or secondary witness. Therefore, 16 units were allowed for four affidavits, including two from Steve Picard (the Council’s employee). The court also allowed 4 units for second counsel fees under Item 20, rejecting Vincent’s argument that no order authorized such costs. However, the court disallowed 2 units claimed under Item 26 for preparation of a certified tribunal record, holding that this obligation flows from the administrative tribunal’s statutory duty, not from the Council’s role as a party respondent.
All 1,637.34 in claimed disbursements were denied. The court found that administrative and technological fees lacked sufficient specification of purpose and necessity. Parking and meal expenses incurred in the city where the respondent’s counsel was located were deemed non-recoverable. The court also rejected a double-costs claim for assessing a motion already included in the overall assessment.
Key Takeaways
- A successful party in judicial review is entitled to costs under Tariff B even if not successful on every argument raised.
- In interpreting tariff provisions for assessable services, courts apply modern statutory interpretation principles, reading terms in context and considering bilingual versions as equally authoritative.
- Not all administrative tasks performed by a tribunal-as-respondent are recoverable as party costs; obligations imposed by the Rules on the tribunal itself are excluded.
- Disbursements must be clearly explained as reasonable and necessary; vague categories like “administrative and technological fees” will be disallowed without specificity.
- Parking and meal costs at counsel’s home office location are not recoverable disbursements.
Why It Matters
This decision provides practical guidance on cost assessment in federal judicial review proceedings. It clarifies the scope of Tariff B (amended December 2025) and demonstrates that while successful parties are broadly entitled to costs, courts retain discretion to reject unreasonable or duplicative claims and to ensure that administrative duties imposed by the Rules are not improperly shifted to the opposing party as costs. The interpretation of what constitutes a “supporting witness” for tariff purposes also offers clarity for future costs assessments involving multiple affidavits.